Alignment - Action As Intent

[Thornir Alekeg]

This is why ultimately I prefer games where codified definitions of alignment are less important that the consistency with which a character's behavior is played.

 

[Bloosquig]

Alignment and morality in general is a unique viewpoint of every person. I strongly dislike the entire system and it was the main reason my favorite campaign was ended. A system governing morality is just tough to properly put into a game I guess. Then again its hard enough to get in the real world as well I guess.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, I'm just taking the idea from the SRD on good/evil and law chaos
By those definitions, I see lying, cheating and stealing as clearly being issues of law/chaos rather than ones of good and evil. If the lying, cheating and stealing is intended to harm someone else, then it would fall into the realm of evil. If it is intended to just make your life easier, then I say it suggests the acts themselves are not evil.

I can see what you are saying about law/chaos axis. But that brings us back to intent. Lying that the food you are eating tastes okay when it is horrible is a lie but it is done to spare someones feelings is not an evil act I would not punish a paladin for saying that lie.

Though I am sure there are people who would say no the paladin is wrong its against his alignment for the lie of kindess which is why I look at intent as well as action.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

In my games, a character's alignment is determined by whatever was written on his character sheet at the character's creation, regardless of that characters actions or intent after the fact. Alignment is predetermined and nigh impossible to change.

Later
silver

 

[Clueless]

One of my previous character's most kind and merciful acts involved slitting the throat of an unarmed begging subordinate and then desecrating the corpse by taking a part home with him.... shocked the table, GM went silent for a moment, there was utterly no hesitation on the part of my character... and yet, once the motives were explained - it was deemed a wholly Good act. This is why I *always* support players and DMs talking out motives for actions and strongly encourage trust in the DM. I tell my players "Play your character not what's scribbled on the sheet - we'll go from there."

(Context for those curious: The fellow would otherwise have been tortured at the hands of an insane elder dragon - we had our backs firmly to the wall - and I knew we had a cleric back home that if given a hand and told "Fix him." would do so. A little bit of trauma up front yes, but a whole lotta living happy later.)

 

[Roger]

Thesis: In D&D, Deities must judge actions without knowing intent. All they can know is what action you declare.

Oh boy, an alignment thread!

I think there's evidence to contradict this thesis in the RAW.

For example, consider vampires. Vampires are always evil. They can rescue orphans from burning buildings and kittens out of trees until the end of time, and it won't help a bit. They'll still be evil. They can sit inside a box and take no actions at all, and they'll still be evil.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Nifft]

One of my previous character's most kind and merciful acts involved slitting the throat of an unarmed begging subordinate and then desecrating the corpse by taking a part home with him...

In a universe where returning from the dead is merely a daily resource to manage, murder needs a bit of re-definition. One could, indeed, spend a year dead just for tax reasons.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hussar]

Implication: Alignment largely becomes superficial because of the inherrent neutrality of most actions in the absence of intent.

Example: Killing, the basic act of taking another life, in the absence of intent. A lion killing a gazelle for a meal, a paladin striking down an evil tyrant before they can enact their wicked scheme, and a selfish prince murdering his father so he can grab power ... without intent they're all the same neutral action.

Conclusion: Without intent, all shades of alignment quickly fall to gray by virtue of the various ways in which most base actions can be used in different circumstances making the broad majority of actions neutral by default.

Well, actually, by RAW, that is incorrect. The definition of good and evil is pretty specific about whether a given killing is good or evil. A lion eating is specifically covered. A paladin whacking down the evil tyrant is also pretty well covered under LG.

But, really, you've got the cart before the horse. A selfish prince isn't evil because he killed his father and grab power. He killed his father and grabbed power BECAUSE he's evil. If he was good, he'd respect life and not whack the old man.

Alignment is descriptive. It tells you what actions would be most likely forthcoming from a given character. A Chaotic Evil character kills and does bad things because he's evil. He's evil even when he's sitting in a bar and having a beer that he paid for. He's still evil while asleep in his bed holding a pink teddy bear. (Especially while holding the pink teddy bear.)

 

[Clueless]

I think the bigger question becomes - what are some good techniques to find out from the player (sans major bias from a player just coming up with stuff out of his rear) what the reasoning and motivation is behind their actions?

 

[Clueless]

In a universe where returning from the dead is merely a daily resource to manage, murder needs a bit of re-definition. One could, indeed, spend a year dead just for tax reasons.

Cheers, -- N

Yeah - death didn't scare us that much unless it was at the hands of a yugoloth with a a trap the soul memorized ...